.

Minutes
Faculty Senate of East Carolina University

Fifth Regular Session of 1979/80 Academic Year
29 January 1980

The Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, January 29, 1980, at 2:10 p.m. in Mendenhall
Student Center, Room 221. The meeting was called to order by the Chair,

Thomas Johnson. Upon the calling of the roll, the following members were absent:
Haigwood (Nursing), Haritun (Music), Pories (Medicine), Jones (English), Mikkelsen
(Education) , Condon (Biology), Satterfield (Art). The following ex officio members
were absent: Chancellor Brewer. The following alternates were present: Register
for Tschetter (Sociology), Snyder for Steele (Library Science), Atkeson for Nischan
(History), Heckrotte for Allen (Biology). The following members later joined the
session: Haritun, Pories, Jones, Mikkelsen, Satterfield, and Brewer.

The minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting of December 11, 1979 were approved as
distributed.

The Chair proposed the addition of two items to the agenda. Item 6.B: Discussion
of the faculty membership to be elected or appointed to the newly established
University Facilities Committee; and Item 6.C: Response to the East Carolina
University Board of Trustees' request for a change in the meeting date of the Senate
for March 1980, to enable the trustees to meet with the Senate. Since there were

no objections, the items were added to the agenda. (Haritun, Jones, and Catterfield
joined the session)

SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY

eo Agenda Item 3.A: Announcements. The Chair made the following remarks and

announcements.

1. In a letter dated January 14, 1980, Chancellor Brewer approved all the
resolutions passed at the December 11, 1979 meeting.

2. Chancellor Brewer approved the relocation of the Faculty Senate Office to
Rawl Annex Rooms 138 and 140 upon the relocation of Vice Chancellor Lemish's office.

3. The Chair attended the meeting of the Board of Trustees on January 23, 1980.
He noted that a new member of the board was present, James H. Maynard, filling the
unexpired term of Mr. Glenn Jernigan. Vice Chancellor Maier gave a brief summary
of the Academic Vice Chancellor's areas of concern with the university, including
research grants awarded by the Research Committee, the Committee for Teaching
Effectiveness, and the Summer Grants Committee. He reported that this semester
there are five faculty members with full-time research appointments. He also
reported that he had had successful hearings with Unit Heads concerning the budget
for the next biennium; that the University has serious needs for space, including
office space for faculty members; and that faculty salaries remain a primery concern
at the University. (Mikkelsen joined the session.)

4. The Chair has appointed Professor Wilson Luquire to the Coffee Committce.

5S. The General College Committee has issued a last call for contributions designed -
to improve the General Education Requirements of the University. The deaaline is

ae February 4, 1980.

6. The University Research Committee has requested applications for new grants.
The deadline is February 18, 1980.

 
ome

7. The Chair met with the Graduate Council on January 21, 1980 and the council
approved an M.A. in Mathematics with an option in Computer Science.

8. Minutes of the Appalachian State University Faculty Senate meeting of
December 10, 1979 and minutes of the Academic Council of UNC-Greensboro of
December 5 have been received and are available in the Faculty Senate Ofti.ce.

9. Today and tomorrow from 10:00 until 4:00 the Red Cross Bloodmobile wiil be on
campus. Faculty and staff may donate blood during those hours at Wright ‘uditoriun.

Agenda Item 3.B: The report of the Faculty Assembly was presented by Professor
Robert Hursey (see attachment). (Pories and Brewer joined the session.)

Agenda Item 3.C: The report from the Planning Commission was presented by

the Coordinator of Planning, Henry C. Ferrell, Jr. Ferrell noted that eac'i senator
had before him the membership lists of the three subcommissions now in effect.
Handwritten notations reflect the changes and substitutions made recently and were
made to keep the lists up to date. All faculty and staff were given a list earlier
in the month of the chairpersons of all the task forces with their phone numbers to
enable faculty and staff to respond to the proper task force. The three subcommis-
sion chairpersons are Eugene Ryan (Academic Programs Task Force), Trenton Davis
(Student Service Task Force), and Bill Queen (Public Service Task Force). Presently
there are an estimated 57 task forces in operation with about 400 faculty and
administrators, 100 students, 19 staff, 17 alumni, 4 trustees, and 3 community
persons who coordinate an area of activity in Greenville, such as the Director of
Pitt County Memorial Hospital. Significant deadlines to be faced this spring
include the Academic Program Task Forces due on March 24; the Student Service Task
Forces, due on February 15, with the exception of four which are due April 2:
Student Organization and Activities, Student Governance, the Nontraditional Student
and Intercollegiate Athletics task forces. April 20 will be the deadline for the
Public Service task forces with the exception of two--the Administrative Coordina-
tion Task Force and Facilities Task Force, which have a deadline a month later.
Ferrell expressed his appreciation for the cooperation and support received from
faculty and staff and noted that the office itself would not be able to function
without Mrs. Sharon Johnston. The office has the assistance of excellent graduate
students who help in collating and running errands on campus.

Agenda Item 4: Unfinished Business. There was no unfinished business.

Agenda Item 5.A: The report of the Admissions Committee was presented by its

Chair, Professor Peggy Wood. The Chair stated that floor privileges had been
granted to Professors Clemens, Bortz, McDaniel, and McGee, for comments on this
proposal. Wood said that for some time the Admissions Committee has seen the need
to make recommendations for change in scholastic eligibility standards, es »ecially
since conversion to the semester system. They have reviewed carefully the current
scholastic eligibility standards and, since August, have worked intensively on
revising these standards. Presented today are proposed changes for scholastic
eligibility standards. Hough asked what data the committee had obtained on the
effect this change will have on future enrollment, if any. Wood said they could

not predict, but that perhaps there will be a leveling out of enrollment. For
example, under the current policy if a student is ruled academically ineligible at
the end of spring semester the only way that ineligibility can be removed is through
work in summer school. If it is not removed at the end of summer school the student
cannot reenroll until the next summer session. Under the proposed new policy, if a
student is academically ineligible at the end of fall semester, the student is on

 
ok

probation during spring semester. If the deficiency is not removed by the end of
spring semester, the student will be ineligible to return (except for summer school)
If, at the end of summer school, the student is not eligible, the student is sus-
pended for fall semester but can come back in spring semester. The present policy
does not allow that. Regarding summer school enrollment a student often hesitates
about coming to summer school because of the possibility that he/she will move into
the next retention period and be ruled academically ineligible during that time.
Under the new policy that would not be the situation; actually, it might encourage
attendance during summer school. The last two changes recommended by the committee
and passed by the Faculty Senate did not cause any increase in the number of student:
ruled academically ineligible. Rasch asked why, under the Scholastic Eligibility
Standards, there is a minimum grade point average of 2.2 required for admission to
the Teacher Education track--are there not catalogue requirements for admssion to
particular tracks that would also require unique requirements~--why is this the only
one that is cited? Wood said this particular statement is as it appears currently,
and it is her understanding that this was something that the Faculty Senate approved
a few years ago. It was recommended by the Teacher Education Committee ard approved
by the Curriculum Committee. This particular statement refers to a large number of
students. Any student going into teaching, whether in History, Art, or Erglish,
needs to be aware that admission into the upper division within their department
requires a 2.2 G.P.A. Rasch said he was also concerned about readmission appeals,
and why certain professional schools require admission by the schools. Why were
these schools selected? Wood replied that there are requirements established by
these particular schools in addition to the admission requirements to East Carolina.
Rasch asked if this was on readmissions? Wood said yes, it states that readmission
to the university does not guarantee readmission to one of those programs.

Lambeth said that in answer to Rasch's question, did Wood not say that there would
be a change so that students on suspension could come back in the spring? Wood
said that in the paragraph which immediately follows those listed as #2, #3, and #4,
the statement is made that a student placed on probation must meet scholastic
eligibility standards at the end of the next semester in which the student is
enrolled or he/she will be declared academically ineligible. If this is based on
the fall semester and the necessary grade point average is not attained, the student
is on probation in spring semester. He/she is not suspended at that point--the
student still has spring semester to bring the grade point average up. Presently
G.P.A. aren't checked until the end of spring. The Committee would like to identify
the problem student early. Lambeth said he had misunderstood--that back in the
quarter system a person who was ineligible could come the last quarter an:' he
thought that was what was meant--that you would reinstitute the former policy.

Wood said no, not since we switched over to the semester systen.

Ward said that the Division of Continuing Education is concerned because of their
structure. He referred the Senate to the amendment distributed by him. They do
not work with full time students. Continuing Education is concerned that the
proposal for Scholastic Eligibility Standards as presented will affect about 1000
students in their various campus programs. Students at Cherry Point, Camp Lejuene
and two other institutions with programs in the evening college program would be
victims of the proposed first retention period. Continuing Education wou‘d like to
propose an adjustment in the first retention period to show the same consideration
presently in their catalogue for that adult, full-time working student who takes
one course at a time. Normally it takes one semester or two to metricul1ite into
full time study. The division believes that the off-campus student would be
unnecessarily encumbered by the 1.35 G.P.A. requirement for academic eligibility

in the first 1-31 hours attempted. Therefore, the division would amend the proposal

 
on

to show that no grade point average would be required for the first retention

period of 1-7 credits. There are many students in off-campus programs who take

a one, two, or three semester-hour course. Since there are two terms within a
semester of eight weeks at military bases and even trimesters at Technicai Insti- a
tutes, this amendment is offered as a necessity for Continuing Education. The

Chair said the proposed amendment to the Admissions Committee proposal would include
an additional step in the retention period, Step A. Bolt seconded. Davis said he
would like to ask Wood or someone on the Admissions Committee about their reaction
to the amendment as proposed by Professor Ward. Does the committee perceive the
problem the way Continuing Education does? Do they have any data on this? Wood
asked Ward if the Division of Continuing Education is aware that a student would

not be ruled ineligible at the end of that first semester. Ward said yes. Wood
asked how many one-semester-hour classes the division offers? Would a student
normally carry only one course? Ward said yes, as a general rule. Wood said that
if a student took a course in fall semester and at the end did not have the 1.35
G.P.A., he/she would have spring semester to remove probation as well as summer
school. There is the possibility that he/she could have earned nine hours while
still working on removing probation. Ward said the problem comes in the definition
of semester. The military bases work on terms. They have two 8-week terms of two
nights a week, Mondays and Wednesdays, 15 class nights, 45 hours of class in a
shorter period of time. If the student came two terms with one course each term,
he/she would be ruled ineligible at the end of the fall semester if it were a campus
course. Wood said the student would be on probation, not ineligible. Ward said it
was his understanding that he/she would be on probation at the end of the first
term, so if he/she took a course the second term and didn't do well, the third and
fourth term (which is actually spring semester) the student would be ineligible.
Wood asked for clarification from Professor Clemens. Clemens asked Ward if he was
saying that Continuing Education has two terms for each semester? Ward s:id that

is correct. Clemens questioned whether terms should be equated with semesters for
the Committee's evaluation purposes. It is certainly not the intention of the &
Division of Continuing Education to create semesters of short length and, by calling
them terms, allow a student to pile up 5 or 6 "semesters" (terms) in one year.

Ward said the need for the terms at military bases is because of missile planning
and crises like the Cuban missile crisis of the 60's. An individual stud<ut is not
tied up for as long a period of time as in the regular semester. This is a differen’
type of student. Wood asked if Continuing Education does not offer classes at night
during the summer session. Ward said they do. Wood asked why students do not
attend those night sessions during the summer. Ward said they can but scheduling
becomes a problem. They schedule a two-year program in three years in a sequential
way so that if a student misses one part of the sequence that sequence does not
occur again for three or four years. Wood asked Ward if Continuing Education had
conducted a study of the probability of success for those students who make a poor
grade on their first course. Ward said no, but normally after students are admitted
and begin metriculation into the university, their grades at the beginning are not
good. Wood said the committee hoped that this additional retention period would

not be added because it would be a regression right back to the current situation.
Studies have found that the student who got in early academic trouble, that is,
below the 1.35 G.P.A., is the student who dropped back to part-time status and
drifted along as long as possible. That is one of the reasons for recommending

that students be checked even after one course.

Woodside said that the change wasn't that great and moved the question. The vote
on the previous question passed. The amendment presented by Ward would aud an
additional retention period of 1-7 semester hours. On a voice vote the amendment
passed. The Chair indicated that the motion as amended was open for discussion.

 
se

Jones questioned the last paragraph under Special Readmission. Why the inclusion
of the Fall, 1966 date? Clemens said there was a reevaluation in 1966 and aL 4FYs
were dropped at that time and the university went to the 3, 4, system. Ferrell
said that if this motion passes, it will take four years to put it into effect.
Wood said if the motion passed it should go into effect at the beginning of the
fall semester, 1980. Ferrell asked that if the university admitted someone in 1978
under the old procedures, could the university not be held to the old procedures?
Wood said can they not select the catalogue under which they want to graduate?
Ferrell said that is true, but if they don't want to they don't have to, and he
thought it would take four years for this to be in effect. Brewer said he is not
certain, but he thinks that when you choose the catalogue you choose the curriculum
requirements--he doesn't think you choose the procedures of the university. If the
university changes the catalogue procedure on probation and suspension, the changes
go into effect that semester. He said he could get a legal opinion on it. Wood
said that if it is not out of order and there are no objections, she would request
that the proposal be returned to the committee for further study into the ramifica-
tions of the amendment. The Chair said there was a motion to recommit the proposal
to the committee and asked if there was a second. There was a second. Woodside
raised a point of order, that the motion must be moved by a member of the Senate.
The Chair agreed and ruled the motion to recommit out-of-order. The previous
question was called and passed by the necessary two-thirds majority. On a voice
vote, the motion presented by the Admissions Committee, as amended, passed.

(See Resolutions Passed 80-1).

Agenda Item 5.B: Report of the Ad Hoc Code Screening Committee (Professo™
L. Campion). Since Professor Campion was not present, the Senate moved to the
next agenda item.

Agenda Item 5.C: The report of the Committee for Teaching Effectiveness ‘as
presented by its Chair, Professor Tom Sayetta. Sayetta said that he had not been
told the nature of the report desired by the Senate. The Chair stated that at the
time the Agenda Committee last met, it requested the chairs of the Committee for
Teaching Effectiveness and the University Research Committee to appear before the
Senate and respond to questions about the most recent grants recommended by the
committees. Professor Sayetta is present to answer questions concerning recommen-
dations for the most recent grants awarded. Ryan asked if the committee had made
recommendations for grants for teaching effectiveness. Sayetta replied yes, it

had recommended 15 proposals to Dr. Maier. Dr. Maier has approved their recommen-
dations and the recipients have been notified. Ryan moved that the committee supply
the Senate the names of people who have been distinguished by receiving awards from
the Teaching Effectiveness Committee. Ferrell seconded the motion. Schmidt moved
an amendment also to provide the nature of the proposal and the amount of the funds.
The motion to amend the proposal passed. Snyder said that since she submitted
proposals to both committees, it would have been helpful if both committees had
established clear guidelines about what is acceptable to Teaching Effectiveness and
what is acceptable to the Research Committee. Her proposals were rejected and she
doesn't know why. The Chair suggested that Snyder get in touch with the chairs of
these committees and ask for a specific explanation. The Chair noted thac the
motion before the Senate is for a list to be submitted to the Senate of the ©
individuals receiving grants from the Committee for Teaching Effectiveness, includ-
ing the nature of the proposal and the amount. On a voice vote, the motion was
approved, (See Resolutions Passed 80-2.)

Ryan questioned the criteria involved. He assumed that the committee dew loped
criteria in making the decision about which proposals to grant or recommeid for
funding and which not to grant or recommend. Sayetta said that was correct. Ryan

 
Sie

asked if those criteria had been made known to the faculty. Sayetta replied that
there are some guidelines listed on the application form and those are known to

the faculty who apply for the grants. Mainly, the committee was looking for _ eo
proposals that tried to develop new approaches and methods for improving teaching
effectiveness where the improved learning experienced by the student could be
determined to see if it was better than the previous system. Aithough all proposal
that were funded did not fall into that category, that was the most important
criterion, That was what they were looking for, but they accepted other types of
proposals. Ryan asked if it would be possible next year in calling for proposals
to indicate clearly what criteria would be used in making a decision. It seems
unfortunate to have faculty members playing guessing games about whether they are
going to meet the criteria or not. Sayetta said that there are new guidelines
which they are working on now so that they can request proposals from the faculty
within a week. A notice will be sent to make the faculty aware of the request for
proposals. Proposals will be due on April 1st for next July. The new guidelines
will be more specific for those who want to apply for grants. Baker asked if it is
correct that the committee chose as top priority for consideration this year pro-
posals that had some measuring component built into them--pre-effectiveness, post-
effectiveness, etc. Sayetta said they may not have put it into those terms, but
that is essentially the idea. Baker said he didn't think that came across in what
the committee sent out for criteria--in fact, it came to him out of the blue that
that was a requirement. Dough said there seems to be some question about material
sent out. He can remember receiving several handouts requesting faculty members

to submit proposals. Schmidt asked if any workshop attendance was funde:’. Sayetta
said he would have to look through the proposals, but believes the answer is yes.
Schmidt said while you are looking, he would like also to know if there were any
persons funded who have previously received funds from the committee. Sayetta said
he would have to make a correlation between last year's recipients and this year's
recipients. He has not done that. Schmidt asked if the committee had made an A)
attempt to ascertain what use had been made of previously granted funds? Sayetta
said that proposals for funds request certain items; the committee assumes ~

that the funds have been spent for those items. At the end of the granting period
the grantee is supposed to write the committee indicating what has been accom-
plished and how the funds have been spent. Schmidt moved that the committee respon
to his questions in writing prior to the next Senate meeting. The motion was
seconded. The Chair said the motion before the Senate was that the committee report
to the Senate in answer to Professor Schmidt's questions. On a show of hands, the
motion failed. Dr. Maier, wishing to respond to the questions raised, recalled
that there were a few who were granted funds for workshop attendance, much less
than at previous times, and there were some repeaters who were, however, doing
different things. The Chair observed that he had been working with the Vice
Chancellor and will be working with the chairs of both committees on the question
of accountability. Dr. Maier said accountability has already been discussed with
the Committee for Teaching Effectiveness. Sayetta is not prepared to discuss it
but that accountability is going to come before the committee. They have dis-
cussed the problem of how to get the reports in, and it is a significant problem to
address--how do you get the previous reports in. Schmidt's question is a good one;
we do need to follow up, but he is confident that the three groups--the Summer
Grants Committee, the Teaching Effectiveness and Research--will address this issue
with results.

Agenda Item 5.D: The report of the Committee on Committees was presented by its

chair, Professor Eugene Ryan. Ryan said the Committee on Committees has three new
charges for the attention of the Senate, and they are located on pages 4 and 5 of

the agenda: new charges for the Faculty Welfare Committee, the University Computer @
Committee, and the Career Education Committee. The Committee on Committees has

 
a

worked these out in cooperation with the committees involved and believes that in

no case did they do something counter to the wishes of the people on the committees.
These are being presented for the first time and will be voted on as a by-law

change next month. Price asked Ryan to explain paragraphs 4.B and 4.D of the
charges; they seem to be the same. Ryan said the D. item in each of the charges
concerns the power of any specific committee to act independently of the Senate.

The Committee on Committees views this as a very important revision of the charges,
that is, to spell out in what individual activity the committee should engage. For
example, the Faculty Welfare Committee is empowered to make recommendations concern-
ing policy to the Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee without coming to the Faculty
Senate. If the Senate adopts it, the committee would have that power. The
University Computer Committee is empowered to represent the faculty computer
interests of the academic commmity, so there again they would be empowered to do
this without coming to the Faculty Senate. Kane asked if salary was under the pur-
view of the Faculty Welfare Committee since it is not specifically mentioned.
Ferrell said, in reply to Kane's question, that ‘'all other programs" covered every-
thing else and would include salaries. Atkenson said that the Welfare Committee
had pursued the salary question under that phrase. Woodside said that he noted

the Career Education Committee had a quorum of 4 faculty members with 5 ex officio
members. There was a possibility of ex officio members outnumbering faculty members
at a meeting, and he felt this wasn't appropriate on a faculty committee. Ryan
said his recollection is that this was not considered, and a proposed amendment
might be in order next month. Faulkner said that from three years' experience on
the Faculty Welfare Committee, that the ex officio members on this committee
frequently lead the discussions and are the main sources of information. Their
presence, or their representative's presence, is necessary for conducting the
business of that committee. She is in favor of leaving the membership the way it
is. Haritun spoke and supported Faulkner. Woodside said that he didn't suggest
that they take anybody off--he just called to the Senate's attention that the

ex officio members could outnumber the faculty members. Dough said that in the
Faculty Welfare Committee charge, paragraph 4.A might conflict with another com-
mittee's jurisdiction concerning leaves of absence. Ryan said he thought not. In
the Faculty Manual there is a section concerning leaves of absence; no other
committee is responsible, and the Faculty Welfare Committee has made recommendations
about this issue.

Agenda Item 5.E: The report of the University Curriculum Committee was presented
by its chair, Professor William Grossnickle. Grossnickle asked for approval of the
degree requirements for Business Education and Office Administration as shown in
the committee minutes of December 6, 1979, changing requirements for Vocational
Business and Office Education Certificate, Distributive Education Teaching Certifi-
cate, Distributive Education and Basic Business Teaching Certificate, Option for
Technical Teachers, and Option for Secondary School Teachers. On a voice vote the
Senate approved the changes as shown in the committee minutes. (See Resolutions

Passed 80-3.)

Agenda Item 5.F: The report of the University Research Committee was presented by
its chair, Professor Lokenath Debnath. The Chair said that the Research Committee
had presented to the Senate a list showing the applications for research grants

that were not funded. Daugherty asked what the letter before the number means on
the ones that were not funded. Debnath said this is the committee code number.

Ryan asked Debnath about the criteria that were adopted in deciding recommendations.
Debnath said they were given in the previous reports: travel expenses for research
were funded, travel expense for attending meetings with or without presen“ation of

 
-3-

of articles were not recommended for funding. Limited funds for student wages and
research assistants were recommended. However, the committee had a big problem
with the availability of enough funds for this line item. Funds for research 4
equipment were funded. Standard equipment and standard supplies were not recom-
mended for funding. The committee felt these should be provided by the devartments
or the school. ‘ages for secretarial help were not funded because funds were not
available in the budget. Page or publication charges only for accepted research
articles by refereed journals were funded, but publication costs for book manu-
scripts were not funded because such manuscripts are not research in nature and
royalties become involved. These are some of the general criteria used by the
committee. Ryan asked if in addition to these there were other criteria adopted by
the committee and wondered if the Research Committee could indicate what other
criteria the committee had made use of. Would it be possible in connection with

the next call for proposals for the committee to let the faculty members know which
are the operative criteria? Debnath said those could be mentioned in the next
announcement but that they have already announced the call for proposals. Ryan said
perhaps it would be easier to append it to the Faculty Senate minutes for this meet-
ing. The Chair asked if it would be acceptable to Ryan for the committee to send
out an additional memorandum with this information. Ryan said it would be easier
to append it to the Faculty Senate minutes. It seems to him that it should be made
clear to the faculty ahead of time what the parameters are so they are not just
guessing. Either way is all right with him. Debnath had no objections to mailing
the additional information. Adler said he is a member of the committee, and he
believes that the criteria are now listed in the new application form, and it would
almost mean mailing the application form to everybody. Ryan asked if the criteria
that were involved last year, and that will be involved this coming year, are listed
on the application form? Debnath said not on the application form but on the
guidelines and instructions form. There are two pieces of material, one is the
application form and the other is the guidelines and instructions. On that, we &
list it in general. Ryan said that if that is the case then he would withdraw his
request, but it was his understanding that the committee did adopt more specific
criteria with regard to funding projects. Are those included on the form? Debnath
said yes, in the guidelines and instructions. The Chair clarified that the mailing
to the entire faculty did not include all of these criteria. _Debnath saic that
because of the expense involved, they did send the call for proposals to every
faculty member, but they did not send the instructions and application form to all
faculty members. They sent examples to the departments and schools and indicated

in the call for proposals that interested faculty members should either ccntact
their departments or schools or pick it up from the Faculty Senate Office. Ryan
said he did not want to belabor the issue, but wanted to get it clear--are all the
criteria then shown on the forms? Debnath said he did not know if all the criteria
are shown, but most of the criteria the committee has adopted so far are there. He
said that other things come up in the committee that they talk about and factors
dealing with the amount of research the person had done were involved.

Ryan asked that to the extent that the criteria could be made available ahead of

time, then have they been made known? Debnath said yes. Grossnickle asked if

normal supplies were not funded? Debnath said no. Grossnickle asked what if they
wanted to do a mail survey and then follow up with a telephone survey and the amount

of the postage and telephone charges used up the entire departmental budget for

those items? Debnath said they evaluated the list of the items requested and what

kind of items. If it were a $5 or $20 item, or whatever, they felt the departments
should carry it. If it is a project which included supplies which were obviously

over the budgets of the departments and necessary for completion of the project, &
they funded this type of proposal. Ironsmith inquired about the committee's wishes

 
-9-

in submitting reports at the end of the funding period. Debnath said that in the
instructions and guidelines such a report must be submitted at the end of the

& fiscal year or when the propesal is completed and when the final report or progress
report has been completed. The Chair said that a new progress report form has been
prepared by the Research Committee and distributed to those individuals who receive
grants so that they might indicate to the committee the progress they are making
under the grant. Kane said he was interested in the accountability factor and is
wondering what kind of latitude he has in determining his goals and what is he
accountable for? Debnath said at this time the committee charge is to evaluate the
proposals and recommend funds. They have received a letter from Dr. Maier about
evaluating progress reports and after the next meeting of the committee he will be
able to tell the committee's position about that, but at this time the committee's
charge is to evaluate the proposals and recommend funds. At the next meeting the
committee may agree or disagree, but we are committed to getting a one page progress
report form and then evaluating them. About the accomplishments, I think there is
as wide a latitude as before, you can do whatever you like, but we must evaluate
how much accomplishment you made and whether it is satisfactory. Kane wanted to
know how the committee evaluated the proposals. Debnath said first of all they used
a proposal evaluation form and there are various items on that two page form. Every
member of the committee evaluated each proposal, except if a committee meriber sub-
mitted a proposal he could not evaluate his own proposal. After the commi*tee
member evaluates each proposal, each subcommittee evaluates the proposal and reports
to the full committee. Kane asked if he could receive copies of that evaluation
form, not filled out, but blank to see how much weight was put upon the qualifica-
tions of the investigator. Debnath said at this time the comaittee did not want to
make public the evaluation form. Kane said that it would be helpful to k:ow how
much weight is put upon each area. Debnath said the committee did not use a point

& system, they had something like weak, strong, very strong, etc., and they also looke
at the investigator's credentials, whether he is active, not active, etc., so they
could separate the progress and record of the investigator. They tried to look at
the project as well as the investigator's record--that does not mean that they did
not fund at all if the proposal was good and the investigator's record was not very
good--the committee was very sympathetic and funded a lot of marginal proposals in
order to promote research and creative activities. Kane said he would like to see
the evaluation form and he thinks he would recommend that the committee particularly
look for proposals which would stimulate extramural funding outside the university.

Debnath said that concerning the evaluation of committee members' proposals, the
committee adopted a very strict rule about evaluation of those proposals. The
committee member who submitted proposals was not allowed to participate in the
discussion or deliberation about his proposal. He was not allowed to stay in the
meeting when his proposal was on the floor. And the committee observed the strict
rule that no member could participate on the evaluation of his own proposel.

Dr. Maier said that there were some proposals for secretarial help which were not
approved--he reminded everyone that the university cannot designate secretarial
positions. The positions have to be generated on a state-wide basis by the general
administration. He does not have the authority to create secretarial positions
over and above those alloted to the university. Such positions are more difficult
to get than faculty positions, and new faculty positions are almost nonexistent for
next year. The other thing is that one of the major requests that the Research
Committee and the Teaching Effectiveness Committee gets is for student help. These
budget categories are set up a year in advance for the university and for academic
S&S affairs. It is difficult or impossible to transfer from one budget item to another.

 
-L0-
It is impossible to transfer into student wages because this is a salary item--
salary items are set by the general administration. There is no flexibility with
student wages other than the amount available at the beginning of the fis-al year. a
That is why it is necessary to work closely with all three committees to get the
recommended budget allotments to fit the allotments of the university. It is
difficult from one year to the next to anticipate how they are going to ciange.
The University is always trying to increase student wages but is not successful
always in getting those increases.

Adler said he would like to respond to some of the questions raised by Kane

because he is chairman of a subcommittee of the Research Committee looking into
some of those things. The attitude of the committee is that if you get only 1/3 of
the money you asked for, they still expect you to accomplish everything you said
you could; if you can't do it, you should turn the money back. That would be the
overriding factor and though it has never been voted upon, it has certainly been
expressed. In other words, they adopted the policy that they would support as much
as they can, and if it's not enough, it's better if you tell the committee then.
Along those same lines, there was a difference of opinion in the committee about
what they should do. Some people felt that they should pick out the top proposals
and give them almost everything they want. Other people felt the money should be
spread around by cutting everything to the bare bones. The committee is going to
resolve that issue--he would be happy to hear from anyone who has an opinion on
which way it should go. They will probably be meeting within the next couple of
weeks. It is a very touchy issue. Regarding some of the questions asked earlier,

. the letters A,B,C, refer to three subcommittees who initially reviewed the proposals.
They were not composed of all from English or all from Biology, etc., they were
divided up with a scientist on each one, etc. Regarding the evaluation form, there
are questions on it and they are answered on a 1-5 scale. There is no way one can
average a score by adding them up. The majority of the committee did not believe ®
in that. Ferrell said that several persons have commented that there are some
persons who served on the Research Committee who received grants. That wes under-
standable because last year when the Chancellor set up the Research Commiitee he
wanted to make sure there were persons on it who had experience in research. If
the best persons available are on the Research Committee, then it is understandable
that some of those persons would receive research grants. Kane said there might be
an opportunity here for a seminar in the area of research proposal writing. The
members of the committee would know specifically where the faculty is weak. It
would be nice to consider how they might assist the faculty in this way, both for
on-campus and off-campus funds.

Debnath announced the call for proposals for fiscal year 1980/81. On January 15,
1980, the committee sent out a memo to all ECU faculty members inviting applications
for grant. proposals for fiscal year 1980/81 with a deadline of February 18, 1980.
Unit faculty members should submit grant applications using the revised application
forms. Revised forms and revised instructions and regulations are available at the
Faculty Senate Office or department or school offices. In the revised regulations
and instructions, some of the general criteria are listed. The committee has plannec
to complete its evaluation early and make recommendations to the administration by
the end of April, 1980. Early completion of this work will enable the researchers

to begin their research projects from July 1, 1980 so they can utilize the whole
summer profitably. Also, the committee will be able to teil the administzation
about the funds required for the various line items of the budget. The committee
hopes it will be able to serve the faculty more efficiently in order to promote
research and creative activity in the university. &

 
a

Agenda Item 5.B: The Report of the Ad Hoc Code Screening Committee. The Chair
said that in the absence of Professor Loren Campion, the chair of the committee,
Professor Ferrell, who is a member of that committee, has agreed to make the
report. Ferrell said he thought there was a parliamentary difficulty. The
revised code from the English Department was distributed dated December 8, 1979,
and in the mail today another set arrived dated January 15, 1980. Ferreli said
the second set is the one before the Senate. When a department or acaden’c unit
initiates a code, the Ad Hoc Code Screening Committee is the one that dez!s with
it, but once it has been approved by the Chancellor, it then becomes the purview
of the Faculty Governance Committee. The Chair noted that the items to be presente
to the Senate are indeed amendments, and amendments to codes that have already been
approved must go to the Faculty Governance Committee. In the absence of any
additional information to the contrary, the Chair ruled the item out of order.
Faulkner commented that the Agenda Committee charged her with directing the chair-
man of the English Department and departmental code committee to compile a list of
changes and send them to the Faculty. That's how it got into the hands of the
Faculty Senate. The Chair said apparently there had been an error in the route of
direction of the proposed amendments to the code of the English Department and this
error should be corrected prior to action by the Senate. These changes should be
routed to the Faculty Governance Committee. The Faculty Governance Committee will
then report to the Faculty Senate. The Senate must receive it from the Faculty
Governance Committee.

Agenda Item 6.A: The Report on the Status of Resolution 79-10 was presented by
-Professor Robert Hursey. He said it was the object of this report to bring the
Senate up to date on the disposition of its resolution 79-10 which is reproduced
on the back of the agenda. This resolution, adopted by the Faculty Senat.
January 30, 1979, called for a tax sheltered, tax deferred option in the various

State sponsored retirement programs. As early as 1976, it had become evident that
a properly structured tax deferred option would be beneficial to both the State and
its employees. Acting as sponsor, the North Carolina Federation of Teachers
determined that a considerable level of support for a tax deferred option existed
and that additional interest was obtainable by explaining to others the acvantages
of the option. An intensive lobbying effort for the adoption of the option was
undertaken in early 1978 and resulted in the establishment of a legislative study
commission (co-chaired by Representative Thomas Ellis and Senator Rachel uray)
which began their deliberations in late November of 1978. Testimony by persons
from ECU was thrice presented to the legislative committee, the dates of those
presentations being 12-14-78, 1-5-79, 2-5-79, On 2-5-79, the Committee voted to
continue the study of the tax deferred option into the next legislative s»ssion.
It is therefore expected that appropriate committees of the General Assembly will
soon undertake the continuation of the tax deferred proposal.

On January 12, 1980, the North Carolina Federation of Teachers invited faculty
representatives of the University of North Carolina, including AAUP, NCAE, and the
Faculty Assembly, to a joint strategy meeting in Winston-Salem. There, the tax
deferred option was discussed at length and those present appeared enthusiastic
about the proposal. It was agreed that copies of a petition would be provided by
the North Carolina Federation of Teachers and sent to those present who had volun-
teered to collect signatures on their campus. The signed petitions will then be
forwarded to legislators, State and University officials. The Faculty Senate of
Appalachian State University will formally consider the tax deferred option on
2-11-80, and a phone conference between the Appalachian Senate and Professor Robert
Hursey has been arranged on that date. Finally, the Faculty Assembly of the
University of North Carolina wiil consider the proposal at its next meeting on
February 15, 1980.

 
‘¥2i

The Chancellor has sent a supportive letter for the proposal to Mr. John A.
Williams of the Office of Administration, the State of North Carolina. fursey
said he thought it was time to take the next step in winning this option to our ea
retirement system. Hursey moved the adoption of the resolution which will be
identical to 79-10, with the exception of the third paragraph, which will make it
appropriate to be directed to the President of the University of North Carolina.
Paragraph 3 will be struck and replaced by: "THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the
President of the University of North Carolina shall urge the Board of Governors to
seek a choice of retirement programs for faculty--one which is tax sheltered, the
other not; and'*. The motion was seconded. On a voice vote the motion passed.
(See Resolutions Passed 80-4.)

Agenda Item 6.B: Proposed Faculty Appointments to the University Facilities
Committee was presented by Professor Caroline Ayers. The Chair noted that the
information before the Senate dealing with the membership of the current committee
did not consider how the Senate would fill the four vacancies on the committee
allotted by the Chancellor. On the reverse side of the handout, information is
given about how persons previously appointed became members, and how the committee
was established. Ayers said the Committee on Committees discussed this new com-
mittee and the membership (there are supposed to be four faculty members) and made
the following recommendations: ‘The Faculty Senate selects the Chairman of the
Faculty while in office as a member of the University Facilities Committee and
directs the Campus Planning and Facilities Committee to select three of its
members to serve on the University Facilities Committee until August 25, 1981.

The Faculty Senate directs the Committee on Committees to evaluate the ccntinuance
of the Campus Planning and Facilities Committee."' Ayers clarified that the
University Facilities Committee is an administrative committee. Ferrell said
allowing the Campus Facilities Committee to recommend membership follows the
procedures the Senate adopted last year in allowing the Faculty Welfare Committee s
to select persons to represent itself on the university-wide welfare committee.
Hursey asked if the number of faculty persons to be elected still remains four?
Ayers said yes, the Chairman of the Faculty will fill one of those positions and
three will be selected by the present academic committee. Ayers read the motion
again for the Senate. Kane asked, in the event the Campus Facilities Committee is
abolished, if the Senate may then elect the four members? Ayers said yes, that if
anything happened to the present academic committee, there would have to be other
provisions for electing the four faculty members. Kane asked if it is known who is
appointed by the Vice Chancellors of various areas? The Chair said there was no
information at the present time. If there is a specific need, he can get that
information. On a voice vote the proposal from the Committee on Committees was
approved. (See Resolutions Passed 80-5.)

Agenda Item 6.C: Change of Senate Meeting Date in March. The Chair said that

at the last meeting of the East Carolina University Board of Trustees, a request

was made that the Faculty Senate change its March meeting to coincide with the
regularly scheduled meeting of the ECU Board of Trustees. They wish to meet for

a period of time with the Senate. They also intend to meet for a period of time
with the Student Legislature and possibly some of the academic committees~-that is
still to be determined. Upon receiving the request from the Chancellor, the Chair
investigated the possibility of adequate facilities to house the Senate ior a change
of meeting days and also the question of possible conflict with classes for Senate
members. At the present time, it has been determined that the meeting room in
Mendenhall, Room 244, would be available on Monday, March 24. The Vice Ciancellor
for Academic Affairs requested that should there be a particular problem in arrang-
ing for a faculty member to take a senator's classes or some difficulty in this eo

 
ose

arrangement, contact the Chair and he will in turn communicate this information

to the Vice Chancellor who would be glad to assist. The Chair has not been able
to contact the Dean of the Medical School but would assume that the same would
apply. Woodside moved that the meeting of the Senate in March be shifted from
Tuesday, March 18th to Monday, March 24th, in Room 244 of Mendenhall, at the same
time, 2:10 p.m. The motion was seconded. On a voice vote, the Senate adopted the

change in the March meeting date.

(See Resolutions Passed 80-6.)

There being no further business, the fifth session of the Faculty Senate in
its 15th year adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Rodney Schmidt
Secretary of the Faculty

Patsey Woolard
Faculty Senate Office Secretary

 
ae

Agenda Item 3.B Attachment: p
Report from the Faculty Assembly

The thirty-first meeting of the Faculty Assembly was called to order by
Chairman Browning at 1:30 p.m., November 30, 1979 in Chapel Hill at the o*fices
of the General Administration. In attendance from ECU were Professors C. Ayers
(for E. Ryan), P. Daugherty, T. Johnson, and R. Hursey.

President Friday spoke briefly and noted his satisfaction with the committee
structure of the Assembly. He assured the group that each of its resolutions
received the full attention of his staff. He continued by reviewing the disposi-
tion of resolutions passed by the Assembly at its previous meeting: Faculties
were encouraged to submit information regarding difficulties with the present
State purchase plan; the matter of non-resident tuition charges is being studied;
the apparent lack of consistency of faculty salary levels among the various State
institutions as compared to national category norms is under careful consideration.

With respect to the HEW affair, President Friday reported that charges of
improper investigative procedures against HEW had been filed; he assured the

Assembly that at no time had the Administration attempted to coerce anyone, as
had been alleged by HEW.

Salary increments will be the number one priority of the Administration in
the coming short legislative session.

Vice President Dawson reported the adoption by the Board of Governors of the
considerably revised external consulting document and thanked the faculties for
their recommendations. An additional report to the legislature on the Faculty
Workload Study is to be made in January, 1980. ca

At the evening plenary session, the reports of the various committees were
received: in response to an inquiry, the Academic Freedom and Tenure Conmittee
concluded that there is no conflict within the UNC Code between the authcrity of
a Chancellor and that of a campus grievance committee--the Chancellor is the final
authority of his/her campus; local grievance committees are advisory.

Salaries and the concept of a salary schedule were discussed at lenzth by
Vice President Dawson with members of the Budget Committee.

A resolution from the Faculty Welfare Committee calling for improved prevent-
ative medical coverage was approved. The Committee also gave notice of their
intention to bring before the Assembly at its next meeting a resolution calling
for a tax sheltered retirement option.

The Faculty Governance Committee was charged to assess the effectiveness of all
Faculty Senates of the University of North Carolina dnd to reports its findings
during the current academic year. The Executive Committee is studying the feasi-
bility of rotating the meeting place of the Assembly.

The Assembly adopted a resolution from the Committee on Planning and Programs
calling for maximum faculty involvement in long-range planning and budget studies
on each campus.

The Professional Development Committee requested details regarding ‘ocal
sources of support for professional development activities in which the faculties
are engaged. The committee will again consider the matter of sabbaticals, and Eo
comments are welcomed.

 
6158

RESOLUTIONS PASSED

The Faculty Senate approved the following resolution from the Admissions
Committee, as amended:

(80-1) SCHOLASTIC ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS

Retention requirements are based upon attempted hours at East Carolina University
and/or transfer hours from another institution.

The minimum scholarship requirements are as follows:

a. First Retention Period, 1-7 attempted and/or transfer hours, no G.P.A.

b. Second Retention Period, 8-31 attempted and/or transfer hours, 1.35 G.P.A.
c. Third Retention Period, 32-63 attempted and/or transfer hours, 1.6 G.P.A.
d. Fourth Retention Period, 64-95 attempted and/or transfer hours, 1.8 G.P.A.
é. Q

i.

Fifth Retention Period, 96- attempted and/or transfer hours, 1.9 G.P.A.
Sixth Retention Period; Second undergraduate degree, 2.0 G.P.A.

An overall minimum grade point average of 2.2 is required for admission to the
Upper Division in Teacher Education and to student teaching.

To graduate, a student must have an overall grade point average of 2.0 aid also
have a 2.0 in the major field of study.

A student who possesses a baccalaureate degree and who is working toward a
second baccalaureate degree must maintain an overall grade point average of 2.0
on all work attempted on the second baccalaureate degree.

Probation and Suspension

Grade point calculations are made and the report mailed to the student a* the
permanent address of record at the end of each semester and each summer tern.

A student who is not meeting the required scholastic eligibility standards will
find one of the following codes printed on the grade sheet:

#2 Academic Warning--This code indicates that the student is performing at the
required scholastic level at the present time; however, continued performance
at this level will, upon the attainment of the next retention period, result in
academic ineligibility and inability to graduate during the normal time frame.

#3 Academic Probation--This code indicates that the student has not met the
required scholastic standards. If the deficiency is not removed by the end of
the next semester of enrollment, the student will be declared academically
ineligible to return (except for summer school).

#4 Academically Ineligible--This code indicates that the student's scholastic
performance has not met the requirements necessary to continue enrollmen*; the
student is suspended.

A student placed on probation must meet scholastic eligibility standards at the
end of the next semester in which the student is enrolled or he/she will be
declared academically ineligible. The first instance of academic ineligibility
will result in suspension for one semester followed by readmission on probation.
Students becoming academically ineligible a second time will be suspended for one

 
-16-

academic year (two consecutive semesters). If a third suspension occurs. the
student will be readmitted only for successful appeal to the Admissions Committee.

During a period of probation or suspension, a student will not be given a
permission to attend another institution of higher education but is elig:ble

to attend summer school at East Carolina University. In this way, a student may
establish good standing during a period of probation or suspension.

Readmission and Appeals

Students who have been out of school for at least one semester must apply for
readmission. Students who fall below minimum requirements to continue at East
Carolina and who wish to petition the Admissions Committee for readmission must
present their appeals in writing no later than two calendar weeks prior to
Registration Day. Students who have attended the second term of the summer
session in order to qualify for the fall semester must present their appeals no
later than one calendar week prior to registration.

The Admissions Committee normally will not consider appeals from ineligible
students unless they are based on personal or family problems of an extreme nature
or evidence of substantial academic improvement.

Students applying for readmission to the Schools of Allied Health and So-ial
Professions, Music, Business, and Nursing must be readmitted by both the
Admissions Office and the Admissions Committee of the appropriate school. A
student may be eligible for readmission into the University but not into one

of the above specified programs. It is not possible to be readmitted to one

of the specified schools without meeting University requirements for readmission.

Special Readmission ®

Students who have been ruled ineligible to return and/or who have been out of
school during periods of three or more consecutive academic years may appeal to
the Admissions Committee for special readmission. Such appeals must be submitted
in writing according to the dates scheduled above.

Subsequent grade point averages of students readmitted under this policy will be
computed without inclusion of previous course work (completed since Fall, 1966)

in which a grade below C was received; credit toward graduation will not be

allowed for such course work. However, this work will be included in calculations
for consideration for honors. These readmitted students must have a grade point
average of 2.0 for the first nineteen semester hours of attempted course work after
being readmitted; they must meet catalogue requirements after that time. A

student may be readmitted under the provisions of the policy only one time.

(80-2) The Faculty Senate approved the following:

RESOLVED, that the Committee for Teaching Effectiveness shall
furnish the Senate with a list of the individuals receiving
grants from the committee, including the nature of the proposai
and the amount of the funding.

 
if Fa

RESOLUTIONS PASSED (Continued)

& (80-3)

(80-4)

The Faculty Senate approved curriculum changes as shown in Unive rsity
Curriculum Committee Minutes of December 6, 1979 which include 7equire-
ments for Business Education and Office Administration.

The Faculty Senate approved the following resolution:

WHEREAS, All citizens of North Carolina who are self-employed or
who are employed and provided a non-contributory pension plan are
afforded the financial benefits accruing to a tax sheltered retire-
ment program; and

WHEREAS, The employees of the State of North Carolina are by law
members of a contributory retirement program which presently allows
no option to tax shelter employee retirement contributions;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the President of the University of
North Carolina shall urge the Board of Governors to seek a choice of
retirement programs for faculty--one which is tax sheltered, the
other not; and

RESOLVED, That the State shall, in lieu of a portion of the raise
to be granted State employees this year, assume, henceforth, the
retirement contributions of all employees who elect the tax
sheltered retirement option; that the State shall not report this
deferred income to the Internal Revenue Service as gross taxable
income; and that the option shall be structured so as to cause no
diminution in presently guaranteed State benefits.

The Faculty Senate approved the following:

The Faculty Senate selects the Chairman of the Faculty, while in

office, as a member of the University Facilities Committee, and

directs the Campus Planning and Facilities Committee to elect three

of its members to serve on the University Facilities Committee until
August 25, 1981) The Faculty Senate directs the Committee on Committees
to evaluate the continuance of the Campus Planning and Facilities
Committee.

The Faculty Senate approved a change of its March meeting date from
Tuesday, March 18, 1980 at 2:10 p.m., to Monday, March 24, 1980. at
2:10 p.m., in Room 244, Mendenhall Student Center.